tv [untitled] February 12, 2013 3:00pm-3:30pm PST
>> how many applicants do we have per year on this program now? that are actually funded? >> barbara? >> it varies -- barbara harris, assistant general manager for power. it varies year to year, commissioner. as the public commenter mentions, not all of them are funded because we have limitations. we have, we have broken up the annual allocation into four sets of allocation to try to make sure the funding is available throughout the year so that we don't have all of the uptake at the beginning of the year and have the employees who are hired to meet the program needs laid off at the various installation companies. so, that's why we broke up the funding into four quarters and are appropriatesing -- excuse me, are v. serving the funds for customers that way. if memory serve me, it's about
1500 a year, but we get far more than that. >> mr. hunt said at the spur it was cut by 60%. and why is that? >> i'm not sure about the percentage. the program when it was initially established by the board of supervisors was identified as a 2 to 5 million per year appropriation as fund were available. when the program first started, 5 million was appropriated to it for the first funding cycle. i think that was true for the first three or four. and then it dropped down to the $2 million level. and that's where it sits today and it sits there in our ten-year capital plan as well. it's a ten-year program. it concludes in 2018. >> 2018. but the general manager suggested we need to tweak part of it, correct? >> well, what we're doing is we are looking for additional funds because in our ten-year capital plan it was committed i guess last year that we had
renewables and solar go solear. and the decision was to put 2 million in the go solar and also reduce the renewable portion. also, you know, we have a big capital need and then repairing our hetchy system. so, we talked about that as well. so -- >> i need correct myself. i overtated the account. it's closer to 500 on average -- >> not 2 million? >> yes. >> have we ever asked pg&e why they don't offer rebates? >> pg&e does offer rebates. pg&e offer rebates under the state california solar incentive program. >> then why do we need this program at all? >> that's the policy call of the board of supervisors and implementing the program initially. as we've talked about implementing our community choice aggregation program, clean power s efficienttion, we talked about tying it to that customer set. and when the board authorized the clean power sf program,
they appropriated an additional $2 million to go solar sf customers of the cca program. so, so, you know, we do certainly see an ongoing opportunity that links the go solar sf program to our customer base as opposed to pg&e's and i think that's one of the policy questions that the general manager is saying -- we're looking at in the long run. >> yeah, that's one opportunity. the other opportunity is that, you know, as you know, for general fund departments, we are actually charging below the cost of delivery. so, one of the things that we are also weighing is if we're going to put solar, we might as well put it on those municipal buildings where it reduces the amount of energy use which reduce our loss. so, we're looking at balancing that versus go solar which you give rebates to private citizens. so, these are all the things that we're considering we need to talk with all stakeholders.
>> what is the deadline to sunset on solar deductions? >> on the go solar sf program, it's currently concludes in 2018. >> i know you said 2018 for this program. i was referring to the state program in terms of -- >> there isn't a deadline for the california solar incentive. >> i thought -- so it's still in existence? >> it's still in existence. the dollar amount available ratchets down over time, but i don't believe it's projected to go to zero. >> okay. but pretty close? >> yeah. >> all right. commissioner vietor? >> i would be interested, since we are in the thick of the clean power sf conversations, to hear more specifically how this go solar program could be tied to go solar customers -- i mean, to clean power sf customers. and also some thoughts around kind of the marketing and framing and if that could be something that would be attractive. there's money that's been
allocated for that express purpose and [speaker not understood] about it? what does that mean, what are the implications for the go solar program as it currently exists? and how might it really help the clean power sf program and the customer base there? >> i'd be happy to bring that to you. >> it seems like it's moving toward the same goal of solarization and install and might even be some value add because we're trying to bring this program online and get customers on board. and if there could be an additional incentive, and maybe i don't know if the monies we currently have forgo solar sf could go in addition to the 2 million that's been appropriated. but if we could hear back on that, i think there would be some great opportunity as we launch the program to tie it all together. >> we'd be happy to bring it back. >> tying it all together is a priority. >> yes. >> thank you. >> any public comments? yes. mr. allen, you know we're scheduled for march 26th at lake merced, right? yes, i just wanted -- the
problem was my schedule so i want to take full blame on trying to -- we'll cancel our trip to overseas. [laughter] commissioners, dick allen, lake merced. i pulled off the internet this morning that there is an item under water enterprises, new projects, new projects totaling $39.4 million. and i read pacific garden gun club 12.4 million includes planning environmental review, excavation, loading examine off-site disposal of about 34,000 cubic soils from across the club site. * a couple questions. who is going to pay for this? is this coming from puc rate payers, or is rec and park going to share it with the tax payers' money because they were the lessee? also, what's the start date for removing the soil and what would be the completion date?
one last question. during the clean up, will the pacific [speaker not understood] gun club vacate the site? and then, of course, the big question is, after the clean up, what happens to the 10 acres? will we be able to get the -- implement the recommendation and the watershed report by expanding the art boat storage at lake merced? thank you, commissioners. >> have somebody respond. >> steve richie. >> mr. richie will respond, mr. allen. >> yes, steve richie, assistant general manager for water. in response to the questions, the amount budgeted here in the puc's budget is 12.$4 million. that would be rate payer money. as we've talked about before, * there are two issues going on there. one is we are working with the gun club to identify if we can access any of their insurance policies from an earlier time.
that will take some time and a lot of legal work. so, we need to proceed regardless. that might take several years to sort out. we should go forward to the site now. secondly -- >> the insurance companies are quick to demand our premium dollars, but very slow to give the money back. >> absolutely. as far as rec and park, actually the puc is the landowner is responsible and the puc actually initiated the lease with the lauden gun club and had them under lease for 15 years before rec and park had it delegate today them. the puc has the underlying responsibility on the property and that's why we need to go forward with it. as far as the timing of this, we are, excuse me, working with the regional water quality control board, the regulatory authority with oversight responsibility for the clean up on the details of the clean up plan so that we can have it in place, excuse me, a clean up order before they buy off on the clean up plan.
i'm hopeful that will happen some time this year. we will then need to go through a c-e-q-a process to go forward with the clean up. so, if all works well, we can get to the clean up in 2014. but we don't know for sure about that until we get into the specific details. and regarding the ultimate use of the property, that's something we want to make sure we had the clean up plan fairly firmly in place before we make any ultimate decisions on the land use to make sure that it is going to be clean the way we'd like to see it clean. and last but not least, the gun club, when the clean up occurs, will be off the property if not before then under the term of the lease that we have with the gun club. >> so, the response to mr. allen on the fine question is that that policy decision is yet to be made? >> that's correct. >> all right. any other comments? mr. brooks? good afternoon again, commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization
our city. it's good to hear, i think i just heard which is we will find a better more ecological use for the gun club space. what i really wanted to address, commissioner vietor's question about go solar sf and clean power sf. this is very crucial. i will always get up here and say, and especially at the beginning a few years ago the go solar sf program, i was even critical because, you know, i see that the clean power sf program does the same stuff but on a much larger scale much more quickly. however, with that said, go solar sf is the one program that we have right now that is working and it's getting solar up on people's roofs. so, that, first of all, argues that we need to fully fund it instead of constantly underfunding the program. you know, if we threw a little bit more money into it, but we're not up to the 5 million a year that we should be on to
fund that program and we need to keep it going. as to how it would tie in with clean power sf, well, part of how it ties in is that 2 million, the 2 million that was appropriated from clean power st is predicated on the fact that the people that take part in using that 2 million in incentives will be clean power will agree to be clean power sf customers. and then what staff didn't mention but is equally important is that the energy efficiency component. so, there's a couple million for energy efficiency. and as we did on moscone center, you never want to just put in solar by itself. you want to put in solar and efficiency together. and, so, to that extent, even though go solar sf is fairly small, even if we did fully fund it, it's like a demonstration project to show how the bigger clean power sf program which is very difficult verse and mixes solar when efficiency storage demand
response combined heat and power, it's like a demonstration project to show the public what we can do as a city under the bigger program of clean power sf. and then once we get those customers to take part in go solar sf, as long as they're clean power sf customers, as long as they agree to stay in, that's predicated on us getting the rates down which we'll talk about later. as long as that happens, then those people that have the solar panels on their roofs and the energy efficiency that they get installed based on the other incentives in both programs, then those people will be able to sell any excess power they have to the clean power sf program. so, we've got all these benefits that wrap in together. and i would just reiterate that even though money is tight, we need to get back to full funding of go solar sf so that we can get people to work and we can tap into all these benefits and this kind of show project for the bigger concept.
>> thank you, mr. brooks. any other comments on item 10? the budget, david pilpow. first i want to say it's difficult to imagine for me it's been over four years since former general manager and commissioner sklar passed a bay. i remember very well our budget hearings with then commissioner and president sklar asking tough questions at 1155. * this is the first time in many years we haven't been at 1155 for budget workshops and we condensed it all down to just this small time. but that's because we're in the second year of a two-year budget process. i also wanted to appreciate staff. we had a discussion a couple of weeks ago at the water subcommittee, the cac and we're talking tomorrow night at the wastewater subcommittee about the budget as it relates to those two enterprises. i've talked to todd, carlos, and others and they've been
very helpful and accessible with regard to the budget. some, couple of other overall comments. although we did hear earlier about the savings today from bond sales, i'm wondering what the cumulative savings have been from all the bond sales and refundings because todd is very good about mentioning each time, but collectively it's been, you know, hundreds, literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the benefit of the rate payers and i'm sure todd can have that up in the next few minutes. i also -- >> i think his pencil is being sharpened up. sharp, it's always very harp. sharp. also, i recall a number of years ago, i forget if it was -- may remember mayor agnes, jordan, looked at the budget in three different segments. mandatory, intrinsic and discretionary. and in that way you looked at those things that are required
either by charter, contract, law, permit or regulation, as being a mandatory cost. and intrinsic cost is essentially the state of good repair maintaining our facilities and operations and discretionary are those things that were not required to do for any other purpose, but we choose to do in furtherance of our policy objectives and that would be some of our community benefit programs, camp mather and other things we do for a good policy reason in support of our utility purposes. so, if there's a way to slice the budget both operating capital in that way, i think that's helpful to further examine it. i also note, and i've got a couple other comments here, but power rates, although we did get through the first cut on that, there is now the second pass. that would not take effect until 2017, but i think we should work to adopt that sooner. the soonest -- the earliest
that we can get that, the earlier that we can get that, the more certainty there is to that happening and the 90 million in additional hetchy costs in the out years, i think become more real. so, i would hope that we wouldn't wait until 2017 to adopt that second phase moving towards cost of service for general fund departments. i also just wanted to note on the capital side, there are particularly water enterprise projects, one of which was mentioned rod and gun club, but others that i think do fall to some extent in that discretionary category and i am supportive of the overall program, but i think that we should be careful about things that we do that cost the rate base and how much we need to do it, how soon. there was some concern expressed by one member of the cac about the moccasin
facilities work. he asked a real and legit question. should we be spending that amount of money at mock a sin for the employees that would be in that facility. i think the answer is yes and it has broader benefits. but i think that is an example of needing to better articulate some of the facilities projects over the long term. so, i'll stop at that unless there is anything further and i wanted to support the action items that are before you today on the operating capital budget, financial and capital plan. thank you very much. * >> i want to thank you for mentioning mr. sklar because for 36 years i had a wonderful relationship with dick and continue to have with his widow. in fact, it was in 1977 that barbara sklar and i introduced legislation to create the delta health care act so seniors could not be relegate today nursing homes but would have an ability to spend a day at a health center, day care center and still remain with their self-esteem and be able to go
to their homes at night. it was based on the out lock model here in san francisco. so, it's been a treasured achievement for barbara and obviously i was just a conduit to which we introduced that legislation. but i miss dick very much and thank you for mentioning his name because often we forget about people who gave their lives to public service. he certainly did under president clinton here with this commission. any other comments? thank you. >> all right. any other public comments before we move to a seriatim vote? all right. if you'll call the items. >> item 10 e is public hearing to consider and possible action to adopt the sfpuc's 10-year financial plan for fy 2013-14 through fy 2022-23. and you do have an amendment on the table for that. >> all right. we have an amendment on the table. i'd like to vote on that first before we go to the actual -- >> may i mike a minor amendment to the amendment? >> sure. >> which is just to add the
dates after it says by fiscal year, just add the dates 2013, 2014 just to be clear which fiscal year those numbers will be -- >> i can't believe todd didn't put that in there. all right. without objection, that shall be the order. i think we've all seen the language. is there a motion? >> so moved. >> moved as amended. to the amendment. all those signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. now to the main motion which is on the item 10 e. is there a motion? >> i'll move. >> moved by commissioner moran. >> second. >> okay, great [laughter] >> getting nervous there. moved and seconded. all those in -- do i have to ask for public comment on this again? no. >> no. >> all right. all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? all right, the motion carries. item 10 c. >> 10 f? >> 10 f. i didn't see that on your notes here. >> item 10 f is public hearing
to consider and possible action to adopt the sfpuc 10-year capital plan for fy 2013 through fy 2022-23; and authorize the general manager to coordinate a request for supplemental appropriation for the enterprises of the sfpuc to adjust the adopted fy 2013-14 capital budget, based on updated capital investment needs. >> all right. is there a motion? >> so moved. >> moved by commissioner moran. >> second. >> second by commissioner vietor. all those signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. >> and item 10 g is discussion and possible adoption of fy 2013-14 operating budget mid-cycle adjustments. >> is there a motion? >> so moved. >> so moved. >> second. >> seconded by commissioner moran. all knows in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> poe posed in motion carries. next item? >> next item is number 11,
clean power sf workshop. >> good afternoon, commissioners. barbara heal, a sis at that point general manager for power. * myself and our cfo agm todd read strum will be presenting today. the purpose of this presentation is not an action item, but rather to preview the content that we have upcoming in the clean power sf customer survey, to discuss the effect on our program costs and our enterprise fund of the use of hetchy generation to support the clean power sf phase 1 or year 1. * and to seek feedback from you commissioners on the monthly premium range that we should be using in the customer survey. we are not asking you to adopt rates today. we are not asking you to tell us what the mix of renewables should be today. we're really just seeking your input and a comfort reading from you, if you will, on the
pricing, premiums that we're including in the customer survey. so, if i could have s.g. tv bring up the computer monitor, please. so, our customer survey, this will be our third customer survey for clean power sf. the main objective is for us to be able to take that data from the survey and put together that heat map that you have seen before, the map of san francisco that defines the precincts and indicates the receptivity of customers to the clean power sf program. we're going to be initially asking them the same sorts of questions we've asked in the past. what's their general awareness and understanding of clean power sf, what's their willingness to pay for 100% green renewable energy that clean energy we're intending to bring to them through the clean power sf program. their likelihood of opting out
if the rates are at the not to exceed level. -- we've been discussing with the rate fairness board and with you. * and then the last two questions indicate a change, and that is reflective of changes that have occurred in the marketplace and in our program. we want to really test customers' interest in investing in local clean energy projects. we've been talking for -- throughout our development of the clean power sf program of the desire to have local build as part of the program. let's make sure customers understand that's a piece of it and ask them their view on it. and also to understand their -- our perspective customers interest in the clean power sf program knowing pacific gas and electric has a proposal before the california public utilities commission to also offer a green electric service option
to customers. ikuta throughout the [speaker not understood] territory. >> is that a hearing? >> the hearings have been postponed a couple of times. the the administrative law judge at the puc asked parties to try to settle issues. the administrative law judge set a deadline of february 15th for an indication of all party settlement. it appears there will not be an all clear party settlement and we have not heard a new date for hearings. that is moving forward under the sfpuc and we are following that. >> are you following that, deputy city attorney? >> colleague, [speaker not understood]. my colleague [speaker not understood] is participating in that process. >> in the discussions? >> yes. >> all right, thank you. >> yes, ms. muler works with my staff on that. and, so, as we think about the future survey, let's think about how the surveys we had in the past. in our 2011 survey is where we
really from the data learned that the majority of san francisco customers are willing to pay more for a renewable clean energy service. the data showed us that at an incremental cost of $8 to $14, you know, we could have either a 40% renewable product at $8 premium or a 100% renewable product at $14 premium for tier one customers. we had di minimis drop off as the price went up but the product got better. most customers in san francisco are either in that tier 1 or tier 2 row that you see represented here on the slide. so, you can he see that's how we ended up with this concept of 100% renewable service. that was affirmed again, then, as we went out in 2012 with refreshed pricing and then that
survey tested a $6 a month premium for tier 1, $12 a month premium for tier 2. and we continued to have pretty high program participation. and, so, then, with this new survey here in 2013, we're proposing to test that 100% renewable product at premium prices that range from a low of $6 a month to a high of 10 for a tier 1 customer, the lowest consuming customers. $13 to $21 for the tier 2. and so forth. we'll complete the data there as we go out on the survey. and we'll learn from that survey, then, what is the expected participation. we'll be able to populate that question mark row for you and bring that back to you at our march 12 commission meeting. one of the other points that we've updated is really looking
more carefully at incorporating the hetchy power into the clean power sf program. we've included the incorporation in our business case, in our contractual arrangements and now we're looking more carefully at how to model that and how to -- how we can ensure that we'd have a reliable service provision with that reliance. so, what you see in this next slide is our average year generation, is the blue sort of mountain behind the bars. that's the hetch hetchy provides over the course of the year. each month represents in those bars the consumption of our current customer base and then added on top of that is the 30 megawatts worth of clean power sf load that we'd be proposing to serve. you can see in some months,
january to july, we have adequate hetchy power to supplement the needs of the cca program. but in july through december we don't. and, so, we're in the market. that's very consistent with the presentations at our last commission meeting, a recognition that it would need to be a mix of purchase power as well as hetchy power to serve the demands. so, that's a pretty clear and comfortable picture for average water year. so, we also have to address the needs of the program in a low water year, in a dry water year. there you can see, you know, they don't happen very frequently. we've been dry one of nine years, 10 of the last 90 years. we have the data, have been dry water years. and you could see that there's substantial need for purchasing to meet not just our municipal load, but also the cca load
were weto dedicate our hetchy power to that portfolio. and with that i'm going to go ahead and turn the presentation over to todd reedstrom. >> can i ask you a quick clarification question before we go to todd? on slide 5 on this new 2013 high price, 2011 the price was $14 more and it seems like the high is only 10 in 2013. >> right, and that's just based on what we're seeing in the market. prices fluctuate. what was it, the 2011 survey -- no, 2012 survey the price was -- the premiums were 6 and 12. they were 14 and 26 before, and now they're, now they're, you know, 10. the -- it's just reflective of the fact that market prices change so it matters when we launch the program. >> it sounds more positive, right, that 46% at $14. then the other question